To answer your first question I would turn to the “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” edited by Carson and Beale. The introduction is helpful in providing a framework from which the authors of the commentary do their analysis, and it seems that they are endorsing the sort of reading you mention. Additionally, I think Peter Enns’ “I&I” is excellent for providing a “Christotelic” reading of the OT. I agree with Beale that this is much better than Christocentric, although Enns takes this too far.

Second, I may write a post on what I think is essential to consider when reading the OT, but that would be time consuming. It would probably need to wait until the summer.

Third, I view the OT as canonically shaped and eschatological, the contents of which are primarily fulfilled in the Messiah. However, I think it is problematic to call it a “Messianic document,” as Sailhamer and Hamilton have done. In 2001 Sailhamer wrote an article for JETS that basically said no texts of the OT were meant solely for Israel as a nation. Rather, all authors of the OT were writing and shaping their language with Messianic overtones for a Messianic purpose. At this point I don’t think I can agree. To call the OT a Messianic document means that everything in it speaks to the Messiah. This is easy to conclude when you prooftext your paper with Deuteronomy, the Prophets, and the Psalms, but difficult to conclude with other books (like Proverbs). If the OT is a Messianic document then the apostles would probably have written to show this purpose. But they wrote that Jesus was the true Israel who fulfills all the covenants and prophecies about him the OT, not that he fulfills every iota. This is clear with Jesus himself. Luke 24 does not say that Jesus held ALL the OT Scriptures to be about himself, but that “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF” (v. 27), and “that everything WRITTEN ABOUT ME in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (v. 44).

While it is impossible to answer your question exhaustively, I do not think the OT is a Messianic document (in the Sailhamer sense), but that, along with the NT, it is first and foremost an eschatological document, about which Christ is the center.

There is a lot of discussion today that is centered on how to read the Old Testament in light of the New. Where have you seen a positive example of someone reading the Old Testament in light of Christ without making him the substance of the Old Testament? So, to put it another way, what book would be a good test case? Secondly, it would be nice to see you do a post or two on what elements you think are essential to consider in order to read the Old Testament correctly … but just a thought! Third, do you view the Old Testament (on a canonical level) as a Messianic document?

Grammatically, the seminary requires that our papers capitalize “Bible” but not “biblical,” “Scripture” (when referring to the Bible), but not “scripture” (when referring to general religious writings). “Christocentric” is a made-up theological word for nerdy theological students. I have no idea if it is capitalized or not. Sidney Greidanas seems to think it shouldn’t, and he’s much smarter than I. This is all part of Turabian format, which is the designated format for the seminary here. In fact, when I came to seminary I had to buy a whole manual to tell me how write good (or is it, “well”?). I’ll show it to you sometime. It’s a writers manual that has apoplexy.

-Paul